Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

4. Specialty treatments. Some procedures and prescriptions are simply not allowed in this country. Either Congress or the Food and Drug Administration has specifically disallowed a certain treatment, or perhaps it's still in the testing and clinical trials stage or was only recently approved. Such treatments are often offered abroad. One example is an orthopedic procedure known as hip resurfacing, a less expensive alternative to the traditional hip replacement still practiced in the United States. While this procedure has been performed for more than a decade throughout Europe and Asia, it was only recently approved in the United States, and its availability here remains spotty. Hundreds of forward-thinking Americans, many having suffered years of chronic pain, have found relief in India, where hip resurfacing techniques, materials, and instrumentation have been perfected, and the procedure is routine.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

"While this procedure has been performed for more than a decade throughout Europe and Asia, it was only recently approved in the United States..."

Just pointing out, that yes, there are quite a few medical procedures approved elsewhere before they are approved in the U.S.A. Because you or I haven't come across, or needed a procedure ourselves, doesn't mean they don't exist. Just as there are medications approved for use in some contries and not others. Thus, one reason, other than cost, while medical tourism is so big. However, allow to me add that there are also treatments available in the U.S. that aren't available everywhere else.

GSO mentioned on another thread about going to Brazil for Sculptra treatment for his HIV-related lipoatrophy. It isn't that it isn't available in the US; but it is expensive and even his insurance wont cover it, so going to Brazil for the treatment makes it an economical option.

Here, because lipoatrophy is seen as a traumatic and stigmatising side-effect of my condition, I wouldn't even have to ask for it. I would simply be offered it free of charge by my doctor, as a matter of course, as part of my normal coordinated HIV care. No paperwork and no worries - my doctor would simply make an electronic referral and I get an appointment. All I have to do is turn up at the designated time and place (and as Ann says, even my travel costs are covered if I can't afford them).

I am getting more than $15,000 worth of HIV treatment ever year and I have just had $25,000 worth of re-constructive orthopaedic surgery. Not once have I even been asked to prove my identity and entitlement - and the only time I have been asked about income and employment is as part of the coordinated assessment to see if I need help to access other support services and benefits that I would be entitled to. As I was complaining to Ann the other day: I actually want to work, but my employer would rather I stay at home on full pay whilst I recover fully from surgery and undergo physio (also provided free of charge).

However, allow to me add that there are also treatments available in the U.S. that aren't available everywhere else.

Exactly, but that is about regulatory / marketing constraints - or perhaps the location of a specialist in a particular cutting-edge field of medicine - not because the standard of medical care available is in itself backward, or rationed.

Ms. P. is right about this-it isn't every American that doesn't want better health coverage. It is mostly the far-right conservatives, who have everything paid for anyway, and get the best care of whatever their problem is. At the volunteer job I do, I see tons of people every day who don't know how they're going to take care of their health, because a lot of them have lost their jobs, and with the jobs goes the insurance.

I'm on Medicare (and Medicaid when I can make the spend-down amount to be covered). When I go see my doctor, the stupid health system his clinic is associated with bills me whatever Medicare doesn't cover. I pay them $10/month, but now my bill is in the $300's. I don't think I'll ever get them paid off. So, even when one has Medicare here, that doesn't mean there's no more medical bills. It sucks all the way around.

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

GSO mentioned on another thread about going to Brazil for Sculptra treatment for his HIV-related lipoatrophy. It isn't that it isn't available in the US; but it is expensive and even his insurance wont cover it, so going to Brazil for the treatment makes it an economical option.

No, you got that wrong -- he was getting a non-FDA approved filler, not Sculptra. I think it's a PMMA-based permanent filler. Dermik Pharmaceuticals actually has a patient assistance program for Sculptra and you can get it for free or a sliding scale. I think I'm headed down that road in a couple of months.

But GSO went to Brazil for a permanent filler, and not just his face but in his buttocks. I also think that there are products approved here, but they'd not specifically approved for HIV lipoatrophy.

Here, because lipoatrophy is seen as a traumatic and stigmatising side-effect of my condition, I wouldn't even have to ask for it. I would simply be offered it free of charge by my doctor, as a matter of course, as part of my normal coordinated HIV care. No paperwork and no worries - my doctor would simply make an electronic referral and I get an appointment. All I have to do is turn up at the designated time and place (and as Ann says, even my travel costs are covered if I can't afford them).

Yeah, not let one of the AIDSmeds conservatards tell me why I shouldn't get the same. I've gone an entire fucking decade living with facial lipoatrophy.

No, you got that wrong -- he was getting a non-FDA approved filler, not Sculptra. I think it's a PMMA-based permanent filler. Dermik Pharmaceuticals actually has a patient assistance program for Sculptra and you can get it for free or a sliding scale. I think I'm headed down that road in a couple of months.

Oh sorry, yeah I misread that but yes there's a split issue between procedures/products being FDA approved, but still being labelled as "cosmetic" by those dastardly insurance companies that right wingers like to defend.

Regrdless of the reasons, the fact remains there are still medical procedures available elsewhere that aren't available in the U.S.A., with the primary reason being regulation. And their all not just cosmetic. Stem cells have been used for years overseas to treat heart disease. Only this year, I believe, has this same procedure made it's way to the U.S.

Exactly, but that is about regulatory / marketing constraints - or perhaps the location of a specialist in a particular cutting-edge field of medicine - not because the standard of medical care available is in itself backward, or rationed.

Just for clarification my insurance won't pay for anything to correct lipoatrophy. Sculptra does have a patient assistance program which would allow me to get the product for free but to have it injected would be $500 per session and require 6 sessions. So it would have cost me $3000 to have just my face done with a temporary filler and by going to Brazil I got face and buttocks treated with a permanent filler by a doctor who specialized in treating lipoatrophy for I think around $2200.

The US is one of the wealthiest countries in world and if other countries can provide healthcare we can too. As I see it we have a couple of major problems. One, people don't like change and the major players in healthcare- pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors- do not want the healthcare industry to change in any way that would reduce their profits. Two, many Americans (not all) have an aversion to paying for other people's benefits. This to me is ironic in a so-called "Christian" nation. Three, people want to choose their providers, have immediate access to the latest treatments, free medications and all the bells and whistles but they don't want to pay higher taxes. Four, many Americans (once again, not all) don't see healthcare as something everyone should have, like police protection. If you had police who didn't come to your home when you were being robbed because you didn't have "law enforcement insurance" people would think that was ridiculous but we accept that some people are not going to receive medical care because they don't have health insurance.

The only way to alter American health care is to change both the culture and administration of health care. Medical care and reporting need to be the same, no matter who the provider is. There should be one standard claim form that every provider uses to determine coverage and there should be incentives to keep patients healthy. But none of this matters if you don't have the medical staff and that is where a major change is warranted.

Most medical professionals will emerge from university, owing thousands of dollars in school loans, that they must repay and the fastest way to do that is to increase the care and test and procedures, so you can get the maximum payments allowed. If we were to change how medical students are financed, by offering them an option for public service, in return for debt forgiveness, they would have less incentive to provide excessive care, just to cover their debts. We also need to change malpractice insurance and litigation.

America is sue happy and just because something bad happens to you medically, does not automatically make that malpractice. Malpractice insurance is outrageous and while I lived in Florida, I lost three doctors, who left the state, due to excessive malpractice insurance premiums. If we formulated a basic care plan, developed by medical professionals, and doctors/nurses followed such a plan, they should receive a sort of "implied immunity" when it comes to malpractice claims that may arise from that very care. This does not mean that you could not sue for malpractice, just that there are many times, when medical professionals, do all they can possibly due and yet the patient still dies. So is that malpractice or possibly a testament to the limits we have in regards to medical science.

We can also bring our cost under control, by using the massive buying power of the Federal government (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans) to secure reasonable pricing for services and drugs. While America is a free market country, there are some things that should not be used to profit at the expense of citizens. Surely there is a way to sustain medical research, while limiting the rocketing costs of such research. Maybe drug companies could reduce their profits, to stockpile resources to help stabilize their costs.

Then there is the administrative waste that exists and that I believe is the most pressing issue. If the Feds rooted out fraud in the government run systems, they would save hundreds of billions every year. When I lived in Florida, someone got my Social Security number and this clinic was billing Medicare almost $10,000 per month, for services that I never got, nor knew nothing about. The first time I discovered this, I contacted Medicare and advised them of the fraud. They promptly sent a letter to the provider, demanding the return of the payment, but when the same company billed them the next month, Medicare paid it again. Repeat cycle, same result = insanity.

The biggest obstacle that Americans have, in regards to universal health care, is the unwillingness of too many parties to compromise. Congress is falling all over itself, in what I believe is a very irresponsible rush to pass major health care reform, before they go on vacation. Will they ever learn? Either way, America needs to change how we view the role of health care and once we can agree, that everyone needs it, the other details can be addressed, in the proper place and time.

I believe that compromise is the key to attaining universal health care and all ideas should have a fair hearing. Maybe we need to throw out our concept of a health system and envision one that would work and then strive to alter our current system. No matter what we choose to do, compromise is the only way to really attain anything.

the other thing that seems to be missed when talking about 'universal coverage' is that it does not have to mean the end to private hospitals and private health insurance.Those who are not happy with the standard of care of level of care under the universal system are free to continue paying for their private health insurance and receiving the treatment they were previously getting.

I don't know if this has been said before, mainly because every response is an epic novel hahahaha. But, many Americans (even Americans that are for UHC) are skiddish about it, well, because they've never experienced it.

They've been through the anal raping of paperwork and insurance claims and blah blah.Or they've even seen spoofs about the shitty medical coverage on TV and in movies (That particular episode of *every* sitcom where someone goes to the hospital for treatment of something, only to discover that they no longer have insurance, or went and was told to leave, in a joking, sitcom, mechanical applause/laughter manner, of course).Or they've seen their parents/relatives struggling to pay bill after bill after bill.

It really *is* the American way. Americans don't know any other system personally. It's one of those "it held up this long, what's the use in rocking the boat?" mentalities. And Americans have a dislike for change, until change is dangerously staring them in the face, and they're left with no other choice. Let's hope that doesn't happen this time.

Note: I'm not implying ANYTHING in this response, I merely stating why a lot of Americans have a hard time simply accepting a new way of thinking. Especially on something like Medicine, and medicine in a society that's based on quick fix (diet pills, viagara, Sleep aids, restless leg syndrome...what ever the hell that is) satisfaction, and hard set manners.

But I think things are going to be turning around here in the next 5-10 years, not completely, of course, but the direction is getting there. But another thing I think that people need to realize is that the government cannot do EVERYTHING on its own. If we want some sort of change, we need to actually take an active roll in making the change happen, not simply electing someone to office and hoping for the best. Checks and balances, people. No change in the history of the United States, or any country, has EVER been easy, and it certainly isn't going to happen that way now. It's going to take work. More importantly, it's going to take TIME.

Personally, being A: A young American, B: Someone who'd like to consider themself a member of the up and coming creative class, and C: Someone who's been exposed to different types of Health Care systems (my dad's from Brazil, and I spent of a lot of time there as a child, where by law, heath care is free to anyone), I am MORE than willing to stick around and be apart of the country's turn-around. If no one's here to pitch in, who will? As someone said earlier, with the right direction, the U.S. has the potential for a stellar UHC. However, as someone else also said, you should never trust a politician. That's why Americans shouldn't just sit around and expect a politician to do anything for them, not without taking an active roll in the politician's decision making.

Once again, not implying anything about anyone as far as who's right or wrong for their beliefs. Just Throwing this out there. VOU!

the other thing that seems to be missed when talking about 'universal coverage' is that it does not have to mean the end to private hospitals and private health insurance.Those who are not happy with the standard of care of level of care under the universal system are free to continue paying for their private health insurance and receiving the treatment they were previously getting.

the insurance companies are trying to have it both ways.

First they say they can't compete with the gov't because it would be so much cheaper (uneven playing fields, yadda, yadda, yadda.)

Then they argue that anything run by the government is inefficient and costly.

Then Obama comes back and says if that's the case (cheap but inefficient and yet costly (uh?),) then, like all good capitalists, the consumer will turn right back around and go back to his private coverage. The insurance companies, he says, don't have a thing to worry about.

Now the current argument is that everything is moving too fast. (Yeah, right. Clinton first proposed this 15 years ago.) What they're really saying is that they need more time to find other excuses.

...I've been through the anal raping of paperwork and insurance claims and blah blah.Or they've even seen spoofs about the shitty medical coverage on TV and in movies (That particular episode of *every* sitcom where someone goes to the hospital for treatment of something, only to discover that they no longer have insurance, or went and was told to leave, in a joking, sitcom, mechanical applause/laughter manner, of course)....

I remember going to the university clinic when I had just come of age. They mailed something to my house afterwards. I called them and said "Um,. I'm not sure what this is, but you've sent me some sort of bill for $XX". Turns out I had come off my parents government coverage and had not registered for my own government health coverage. I quickly got it sorted out.

The only time in 44 years I've ever seen a bill from a doctor or hospital.

If the Feds rooted out fraud in the government run systems, they would save hundreds of billions every year.

And, in a true system of universal healthcare, the vast majority of the consumer fraud will vanish in an instant, because there is neither the need nor the opportunity to commit the fraud in the first place. The fraud becomes pointless.

People here in Buffalo were going to Canada for arthroscopic hernia surgery in the 80's long before it was available here and we were going to Canada for laser eye surgery in the early 90's before it was available here. We are no more progressive.

I've been living in Canada for 3 years now. I'm not on meds yet but I do go for routine blood test every 3 months. I do not pay anything for doctor's visit or blood tests.

I've been to a hospital emergency room once here in Toronto. I was, at first, reluctant to go the hospital as I feared that I may be discriminated because of my HIV status. But on the contrary, I was provided kind of royal service when the nurse at the counter found out that I'm poz. She took me in immediately and there were 2 nurses and a doctor taking care of me all the time for the 4 hours that I was there, and I had to pay nothing! I was pretty happy about it

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how medical salaries - doctors, nurses, practitioners, techs, etc - compare in the US and Canada (and to the UK as well)? I do have a Dr. in the family, but he's not in one of the 'big earning' specialties and is close to retiring, anyway!

I would assume salaries in Canada for healthcare workers would be competitive with the US or else they'd be flooding over the border.

Well, I would assume so as well, but I was more curious as to real data. That's one argument I've heard against any sort of health system, other than what we have now. You know, salaries won't be good so that will effect the quality of Dr's, nurses, etc.

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how medical salaries - doctors, nurses, practitioners, techs, etc - compare in the US and Canada (and to the UK as well)? I do have a Dr. in the family, but he's not in one of the 'big earning' specialties and is close to retiring, anyway!

In the UK ....

It all depends on location. The following are fairly typical out-of-London salaries and cost of living allowances would need to be added for London (approximately £7,000 / $11,500 for nurses and more for doctors).

A fairly average salary for a junior doctor would be:

Year 1 - £35,000 ($57,500)Year 2 - £42,000Thereafter - at least £45,000, rising to £70,000 ($115,000) if they are training to be a specialist.

A consultant or a specialist would earn an absolute minimum of £75,000 (with the average being over £130,000 / $214,000, and up to £200,000 / $330,000) + whatever they earn in private practice.

Fairly normal earnings for a general practitioner would be around £110,000 / $181,000 - but could easily be double that if they perform minor surgical procedures (removing cysts etc.), offer preventative clinics ('new mother', diabetic, 'healthy heart' and asthma clinics), run their own practice or are partners in a practice (and even more if they also do private practice).

The starting salary for a newly qualified NHS nurse is just over £18,000 / $30,000 and rises to over £50,000 / $82,000 a year for a nurse consultant. A senior staff nurse / community nurse would earn around £36,000.

At those levels there is a pretty sizeable brain-drain of medical staff to the US and Gulf states (a fair few to Australia and New Zealand too, but we probably take as many as we lose to them) .. and we in turn drain the talent from other countries.

The median annual salary for full-time employees in the UK, across all industries, is £25,000 ($41,000) and the average would probably be closer to £21,000 ($34,500)

I would assume salaries in Canada for healthcare workers would be competitive with the US or else they'd be flooding over the border.

Per the AMA, while the absolute number of Canadian doctors has increased over time, they represent a small and declining percent of doctors practicing in the US, going from about 2% in 1970 down to about 1.25% in 2000 -- based on where they went to medical school. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/images/373/internettable.gif(see the section IMGs/USMGs -- n.b. IMG stands for International Medical Graduate)

Also, Canadian statistics show that, in recent years, Canadian doctors have been less likely to immigrate out of Canada at all than they were in the past.

Thanks Luke. I'll have to find corresponding figures for the US. I know that my ex- graduated with a 2-year RN degree in '96 and started at over $36,000 working nights in a hospital. The Canadian doctors' figures (which I cannot find now, for some reason!) were a bit higher than those in the UK and somewhat lower than those in the US. However, net income of the US vs Canadian doctors was very close / comparable due to 'reduce overhead' of dedicated staff for billing and handling insurance and lower malpractice insurance.

Thanks Luke. I'll have to find corresponding figures for the US. I know that my ex- graduated with a 2-year RN degree in '96 and started at over $36,000 working nights in a hospital. The Canadian doctors' figures (which I cannot find now, for some reason!) were a bit higher than those in the UK and somewhat lower than those in the US. However, net income of the US vs Canadian doctors was very close / comparable due to 'reduce overhead' of dedicated staff for billing and handling insurance and lower malpractice insurance.

For procedures carried out for the National Health Service, all medical staff in the UK are covered by the NHS's own negligence scheme. They would only have to fund their own cover for procedures carried out in private practice.

The other thing you have to bear in mind is currency fluctuations. 12 months ago, the $ value of those salaries would have been around 20% higher.

Nurses would also have been paid a bursary during their training and had their training funded by the NHS.

That's another thing-college shouldn't break people. A college education should be free (up to a point of course).

I know this is a bit of a hijack, but........ Really?This is not a must have, like healthcare. Why don't we provide free food and free housing to everyone? Hell why should anyone work at all -- let's have the government pay for everything. Where does this end?

That's another thing-college shouldn't break people. A college education should be free (up to a point of course).

Um, they're called SCHOLARSHIPS. Millions of dollars a year in scholarship funds go unused, due to lack of applicants. And they range from grades-based merit, to heritage, to school funded scholarships. College money's out there, a lot of people are just too lazy to search for it :p Not all of them of course, there are always certain stipulations. And then there are most who simply depend on Students loans solely, without considering working during school. Big mistake.

I'm afraid I completely disagree with those who think that we can't pay for universal health care in the U.S. through taxation. Although the right wing has been enormously successful in convincing Americans that high levels of taxation for the richest Americans will lead to some kind of economic disaster, historical experience demonstrates the falsity of that argument. The upper marginal tax rate for the richest Americans was north of 70% in the 1950s and 60s, and the U.S. enjoyed phenomenal prosperity. Mind you, the tax system was very steeply progressive at the time, which meant that only the very richest paid the highest marginal rate on the top portion of their income.

It is true that the middle class today bears a larger portion of the tax burden than before, but this is because we've cut tax rates for the rich and flattened out our formerly progressive tax system. So today, our top marginal rate is somewhere around 38%, and that rate applies whether you make $250,000 per year or $1,000,000,000 per year. To me, that makes no sense as a matter of policy.

I'm also skeptical of claims that the country somehow cannot afford the price of universal health insurance. We were somehow able to afford the $1 trillion the Bush tax cuts cost us over 10 years, and we've managed to find close to $2 trillion (so far) for the war in Iraq. Cost would appear to be no object as we throw more troops into Afghanistan, and the Pentagon continues to receive some $500,000,000,000 per year. I find it interesting that those in Congress and the press who cry loudest about the cost of health care seem to have no such concerns when it comes to other matters. Apparently, they're happy to see billions spent to kill people but highly reluctant to spend a dime to make the lives of actual Americans better.

Finally, Ann is absolutely right. Many Americans just refuse to accept that other countries actually do certain things better than we do, and health care is one of them. Conservatives appeal to this misplaced "patriotism" to make Americans fearful of adopting the best health care practices from other nations. But when Cuba's infant mortality rate is actually lower than ours, what, exactly, are we supposed to be proud of?

I'm also skeptical of claims that the country somehow cannot afford the price of universal health insurance.

How do these people think Medicaid is funded?Medicare?

13% of the GDP is spent on Healthcare in the U.S.(and climbing), yet in other developed countries, the highest you'll ever see is less than 10%.

And people that refer to UHC as "socialised medicine" need to do some research. That's like saying Social security is "Socialised retirement".

And people who are trying to use this as a red flag that the government is trying to turn the country socialist should look at things like 'no child left behind', or making every child in the country read the same books and take the same tests, and tell me that doesn't sound like socialism.

2 countries that come to mind that currently have UHC are Afghanistan and Iraq. Guess who's footing the bill there? WE ARE. So what would you rather pay taxes for; the embetterment of your own citizens and country, or to destroy another country, only to pay for their 'socialised medicine'.

SOCIALISM is when government takes over an industry. That is not what Universal Healthcare is. Under Universal Healthcare we’ll still have private doctors and private hospitals. It’ll just be a new payment system. More than half of our current system is federally funded anyway. Universal Healthcare would provide care for those Americans who need it most and would lower costs to the individuals and employers who currently contribute to health insurance companies. Estimates show that only HALF of your monthly contributions actually go to Healthcare costs. The other half goes to the middlemen. A streamlined non-profit system would cut these costs tremendously. There are, of course, other stipulations and nuances, but without having to copy and paste a 1k page bill, people should just take a gander at it themselves.

Here are some basic outlines of proposals. These are a tad outdated, but you get the jist :p

I know this is a bit of a hijack, but........ Really?This is not a must have, like healthcare. Why don't we provide free food and free housing to everyone? Hell why should anyone work at all -- let's have the government pay for everything. Where does this end?

Mike

And, just how do a lot of people get trained for their jobs? It's usually through higher education. What does going to college have to do with free food? I was not saying that going to school until one has, oh, 10 master's degrees should be free. But, I do think to get people the basic training in things, even maybe up to one master's degree, shouldn't have to break people.

And Tokyo, I'm well aware that there are scholarships out there. But, not for everyone and they don't cover 100% of college costs. And as I'm sure you're aware, beyond a bachelor's level, pell grants are non-existent. I wouldn't blame the entire situation on people being "lazy." I'm sure many people have no clue about where to get scholarships, where to look, if there's enough to cover their education and living costs etc. And a lot of people do work while going to college, but again, it doesn't cover 100% of their tuition, books and living expenses. By the way, what's your degree in and how far have you gone, (bachelor's, master's etc.)?

Again, I'm not saying that going to college ad infinitum should be free. But, I do believe that up to a point, the government should fund education. No one should have to be worried about not being able to get an education.

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

And, just how do a lot of people get trained for their jobs? It's usually through higher education. What does going to college have to do with free food? I was not saying that going to school until one has, oh, 10 master's degrees should be free. But, I do think to get people the basic training in things, even maybe up to one master's degree, shouldn't have to break people.

And Tokyo, I'm well aware that there are scholarships out there. But, not for everyone and they don't cover 100% of college costs. And as I'm sure you're aware, beyond a bachelor's level, pell grants are non-existent. I wouldn't blame the entire situation on people being "lazy." I'm sure many people have no clue about where to get scholarships, where to look, if there's enough to cover their education and living costs etc. And a lot of people do work while going to college, but again, it doesn't cover 100% of their tuition, books and living expenses. By the way, what's your degree in and how far have you gone, (bachelor's, master's etc.)?

Again, I'm not saying that going to college ad infinitum should be free. But, I do believe that up to a point, the government should fund education. No one should have to be worried about not being able to get an education.

The government DOES fund education -- through the 12th grade for everyone and to tune of millions and millions for higher education for those with NEED.Making college free for everyone --even only for a bachelor degree should NOT happen. People need to work for things and pay for things. Else, we'll see more folks go to college, because it's "free" (but it's not really free, now is it) with no desire and ultimately flunk out.Let me be clear -- programs to help the poor with college costs should be maintained and maybe even expanded, but they should remain a combo of grants and loans.I came from a poor background -- got the max Pell Grants and a number of loans (as well as some scholarships) to go to college -- in order to make it even easier, after my freshman year I got a ROTC scholarship. I paid the Army back with years of service -- including serving in Desert Storm. I also paid back all of my loans. I appreciated every bit of help that I received and am very thankful for it. I also went on to get a Masters degree -- but only after I was working for 10 yrs and had an employer who would pay for it.We have to get away from feeling that we are entitled to everything that is available out there -- basic needs, yes -- other things -- absolutely not.As for how my food comment fits in.... Of these 2 things -- which is the most basic necessity for a human being: Higher Education or Food?? If we can't guarantee everyone food, why should we guarantee them a college degree.

OK, Bocker, so because you did it, that means everyone should be able to do it? And there are times when college is a "have to." If someone wants to become a nurse, or work hands-on in the medical field, then it's a "have to;" if someone wants to become a teacher, then it's a "have to;" a lawyer, "have to." And yeah, maybe there should be stipulations with it, like the person getting the education should have to work doing whatever the university decides is appropriate, such as working in poor neighborhoods for a certain length of time etc.

About free food, well, there are programs that help people with that. Food stamps, soup kitchens, and food pantries (or food banks). At food banks, at least the ones around here, all the person has to prove is their address. And nobody has to prove anything at the soup kitchens (by that, I mean proving need, which is required for food stamps).

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

OK, Bocker, so because you did it, that means everyone should be able to do it? And there are times when college is a "have to." If someone wants to become a nurse, or work hands-on in the medical field, then it's a "have to;" if someone wants to become a teacher, then it's a "have to;" a lawyer, "have to." And yeah, maybe there should be stipulations with it, like the person getting the education should have to work doing whatever the university decides is appropriate, such as working in poor neighborhoods for a certain length of time etc.

About free food, well, there are programs that help people with that. Food stamps, soup kitchens, and food pantries (or food banks). At food banks, at least the ones around here, all the person has to prove is their address. And nobody has to prove anything at the soup kitchens (by that, I mean proving need, which is required for food stamps).

Perhaps there should be more 'assistance' for community colleges / vocational training, but I don't think standard college should be totally free. It's already greatly discounted; check in-state vs. out-of-state tuition at any state university and you'll likely find that a large portion is already covered. For example, at a particular university in the UNC system, for a full time student (per semester), in-state tuition is roughly $2400 and $7800 for an out-of-state student. Those costs are totals including other 'mandatory' fees; the tuition alone is approximately $1300 and $6750 respectively.

I have to agree with David. Everyone should have a "free" high school education but I think people should contribute to college. There are all kinds of opportunities for scholarship, employer reimbursement, etc. Many people take college classes at a community college then finish at a university, which is very affordable. I got a scholarship from the Air Force and the Navy for four years, all expenses paid, to any school in nuclear engineering. I took the Air Force scholarship, went to NC State, realized engineering is boring and dropped it. So I went to UNC-Asheville for my bachelor's degree, worked full-time as a mental health tech at a psychiatric hospital and didn't take any loans or scholarships. For my masters I chose to go to California to an expensive private university and take out loans. I could have stayed in NC and not taken the loans but it was my choice. If I wanted to go back to school now my employer would pay for it as long as the courses benefit the hospital I work for. There are just all kinds of options available.

Anyone, at least in NC, can afford college if you are willing to work.

And Tokyo, I'm well aware that there are scholarships out there. But, not for everyone and they don't cover 100% of college costs. And as I'm sure you're aware, beyond a bachelor's level, pell grants are non-existent. I wouldn't blame the entire situation on people being "lazy." I'm sure many people have no clue about where to get scholarships, where to look, if there's enough to cover their education and living costs etc. And a lot of people do work while going to college, but again, it doesn't cover 100% of their tuition, books and living expenses. By the way, what's your degree in and how far have you gone, (bachelor's, master's etc.)?

Um, they're called SCHOLARSHIPS. Millions of dollars a year in scholarship funds go unused, due to lack of applicants. And they range from grades-based merit, to heritage, to school funded scholarships. College money's out there, a lot of people are just too lazy to search for it :p Not all of them of course, there are always certain stipulations. And then there are most who simply depend on Students loans solely, without considering working during school. Big mistake.

I didn't call the entire situation as being lazy, sir. YOU did. It's due to lack of knowledge that the money's out there, amoung other STIPULATIONS. Of course, it also helps to actually make decent grades when schooling is free, what makes you think that someone's going to pay for your children to slack off if they couldn't get it together when schooling *was* free? And college students who think that they can't work and go to school are lying. Period. What will happen if our particular degrees call on us to do work-studies? Externships? Internships? Not only will we work, but we'll work for free.

**Note: this doesn't include people who are studying abroad, or in a condition that they wouldn't be able to maintain the two, as some study abroad programs won't allow you to have a job, or one over but a few hours a week. Yet another one of those stipulations.**

Oh, and yes, scholarships are for EVERYONE. Pick up a scholarship guide, you'll find that there are scholarships for EVERY person you can think of. Some may even surprise you. Again, lack of knowledge that the money's out there.

The government DOES fund education -- through the 12th grade for everyone and to tune of millions and millions for higher education for those with NEED.Making college free for everyone --even only for a bachelor degree should NOT happen. People need to work for things and pay for things. Else, we'll see more folks go to college, because it's "free" (but it's not really free, now is it) with no desire and ultimately flunk out.Let me be clear -- programs to help the poor with college costs should be maintained and maybe even expanded, but they should remain a combo of grants and loans.

^well said^

And, if you just need to know so bad, I'm majoring in computer sciences, and double minoring in environmental sciences and sustainability. Scholarships that I sought out and obtained are paying for 75% of my tuition, the rest is covered by the 50 hours a week that I work. Why? Because if given the choice to work a little more *now*, and not be in tons of debt *later*, I'll gladly take that option any day.

Also, in 2009, I can't think of a college that doesn't offer a payment plan.

In a way, it is for many. For example, in my case, after obtaining my degree in Education and working for the stare of Florida for 3 years, the state will pay off my student loans.

I also believe that Obama proposed something similar for all college graduates where if they perform some type of community service for a period of ten years a portion of their student loans will be forgiven.

I will never understand why so many people expect others to pay for those things that they want. When I decided to go to college in the 70s, my high school had loads of information on scholarships, grants, etc, and other ways that you could gain a education, ie. Peace Corps, G.I. Bill, etc., but none of those provided what I needed, so I did what I had to to get the education I wanted.

I stretched my education over five years, so my yearly costs would be lower and I could work part time during school and then full time during the summer. My father gave me $5,000 each year to help cover my costs and I would repay him at the end of each summer for that particular year. I worked for my college as both a bus driver and photographer and worked an average 35 hours each week. In the summer, I went to work for the auto companies and worked 12-14 hour days, because the pay was incredible and I could make almost $4,000 for 89 days of work, which is all you could work if you were not part of the UAW.

My point being that if you want something, there is always a way to get it and by doing it the way I did it, I came away with three Associate and two Bachelor's degrees. That education allowed me to pursue various careers and when I finally settled on Computer Science, my employers paid for all of my education through both IBM and Microsoft.

And Pell Grants, are available for all levels of schooling, because one of my partners, got a huge Pell Grant to attend grad school for psychology.

I think part of the frustration is that certain costs such as health care and higher education have risen in the past few years way beyond levels of normal inflation so there's a sense of inequity building up. Killfoile talks about the 70s, it used to be that if you worked hard enough you could achieve many things, goals were within reach with enough effort and hard work. These days I think many people just want to give up because no matter how hard they work they still will not be able to afford certain basic things such as a good education or the proper health care if they get sick, never mind other things.

The economy has grown artificially in the past ten years or so by way of "credit default swaps," and "derivatives" etc., complicated financial instruments that were "created" by Wall Street bankers out of thin air (with the belief that real estate values could go nowhere but up), whose vales were grossly inflated creating artificial wealth and such an enormous financial bubble that it was bound to burst. It could and probably will, take years for the economy to level off to more realistic levels and begin producing actual products of the future (green energy, etc).

Bottom line: in the past 10 years the rich have gotten way richer and everyone else is worse off.

I think part of the frustration is that certain costs such as health care and higher education have risen in the past few years way beyond levels of normal inflation so there's a sense of inequity building up. Killfoile talks about the 70s, it used to be that if you worked hard enough you could achieve many things, goals were within reach with enough effort and hard work. These days I think many people just want to give up because no matter how hard they work they still will not be able to afford certain basic things such as a good education or the proper health care if they get sick, never mind other things.

Exactly. I went to college in the earl/mid 80's and my parents, both in public education (one a teacher, the other an upper/county level administrator) put both my brother and I through a total of 9 years tuition (I went an extra year to get 3 minors in addition to my major) without a single loan or grant. I just somehow doubt that this could be done with current tuition levels.

ps: and before anyone take me for a spoiled brat I'll have you know I worked weekends from the age of 15 for all spending money, and full time every single summer.

It never ceases to amaze me that people think things they were able to obtain, especially when healthy, through one means or another, should mean everyone can do it. For, if I can, then all can, right? What about people that aren't so lucky.

But, whoa, talk about health care, that Killfiole moved to Canada for, then watch out. It should be a right. And I think it should be, by the way, before someone jumps on me for that.

Edited to add: I know of no college that grants pell grants for anything beyond a bachelor's degree nowadays.

« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 06:21:09 PM by BT65 »

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

I wasn't jumping on anyone, merely stating that if you want something bad enough, you can usually find a way to get it. I would never want to limit anyone, especially if they were disabled, from getting an education, but for most people, that is not the case. Our schools are horrible educators and college costs have gone through the roof. My daughter was lucky, her mom married a wealthy man who could give her four years at Carnegie Mellon at an annual cost of $50K. That is an obscene amount of money for higher education, but you can still get a solid education through a community college.

And for the record, I did not move to Canada for the health care, I came home to my birth county. In another thread I describe my last few years and after getting death threats from a neighbor and going to court and appeals, we were granted Orders of Protection, that neither the court or police would enforce, because our Supreme Court has ruled that they do not have to enforce them. So rather than being killed, for being gay, we headed north and it is something that I have should have done decades ago.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Sorry for the hijack, but can anyone tell me why there is such a rush to push this through Congress, when we know that what Congress does, under artificially imposed deadlines, generally produces crap legislation. Why can't they pass a frame work for health care reform and than take the time, to figure out how to do it, so we have results we can believe in. All this fear mongering is just that. You can find horror stories in any health care system, but the fact remains that without some major changes, medical costs will bring America to her knees.

I am at a loss as to why our Congress cannot get it's act together and pass some meaningful legislation for health care reform. Health care reform is a process, not an event, so why the rush?